Talk:The New Day (professional wrestling)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because... (It's currently a work in prgoress, I had to upload an Image for the article.) --Joshua Guest (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because... (The Article has been completed and if there is any more information to be added. Please add some more information to it. Thank you) --Joshua Guest (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because... (Now the article has been completed. Please remove the speedy deletion as I wish to link the article to Kofi Kingston, Xavier Woods and Big E. Thank you)Joshua Guest (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Joshua Guest
 * You've added content but there's no indication of notability. If this does survive speedy deletion I can guarantee it will be AfD'd.  Tag teams rarely pass the WP:GNG this quickly, we've deleted so many tag team articles in recent years that I've lost count... these include Team Rhodes Scholars, R-Truth and Kofi Kingston, 3MB, RybAxel, and Slayers (professional wrestling).LM2000 (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

So, who's the tag team champions anyway?
Well, Big E and Kofi were the tag team that won the match. However, in this video on WWE's YouTube channel, Xavier commented how this was his first ever title won in WWE. That seems to hint that the New Day will be bringing back the Freebird Rule when it comes to title defenses. Just something to think about here...I'll link to this discussion in Xavier's page too. Tom Danson (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Here it is straight from WWE.com itself - flat out calling it the Freebird Rule. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in The New Day
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The New Day's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "OWoW": From Roman Reigns:  From Kofi Kingston:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The New Day Tag Team Titles image
is it too necessary to have 2 images from the same source just to show them on the page even when it does not helps the article ? TheBellaTwins1445(talk) 21:22, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

No it is not look at other tag team articles such as The Wolves plus my image shows their belt more clearly than yours which is the purpose. Edge4lfe42(User Talk:Edge4lfe42) 21:22, July 18, 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 (talk • contribs)

wwe the new day
the new day has a very new member seth rollins he is apart of the new day and yhey should rewind everything that they did in the past and do it again with seth rollins too. cause that is just so un fair and make sasha banks the certified g member with big cass and Enzo amore too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.56.11 (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not adding as there is no citation for this. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

New Day actually the third longest reigning tag team champions in WWE history
"The New Day again managed to retain the championship and thus broke Demolition's record as the longest reigning tag team champions in WWE history."

Only if you count modern or only male tag team champions.

If we count the tag team champions of the various tag team championships that WWE has had in its 63 years history then New Day are third in longest tag team champion in WWE history if we count since Captiol Wrestling was founded in 1953 with there still being no change for the top 4 if we count since Captiol Wrestling became WWF in 1980.

Then The Glamour Girls (Leilani Kai and Judy Martin) held the WWF Women's Tag Team Championship for 906 days becomes the longest reigning tag team champions in WWE history. In second is Velvet McIntyre and Princess Victoria whom held the WWF Women's Tag Team Championship for 574 days. The New Day is actually in third with 478 days and counting with WWE Raw Tag Team Championship. Finally in fourth is Demolition (Ax and Smash) with 478 days with the old World Tag Team Championship. - 2A02:C7D:C49:5C00:1468:2D5:30E0:DEFF (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Page rename
Page should be renamed to The New Day (WWE) rather than (wrestling), it's more accurate. 173.68.25.111 (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The only time we use the promotion as a disambigulator is when there are other articles with identical names: The Revolution (TNA), The Revolution (WCW), Revolution (puroresu); The New Breed (ECW), The New Breed (professional wrestling tag team). This should actually be moved to The New Day (professional wrestling) which is consistent with other stable articles.LM2000 (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 30 December 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 03:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The New Day (wrestling) → The New Day (professional wrestling) – Change for consistency in wrestling tag team articles. Every other tag team article contains "professional wrestling" and not just "wrestling". This article is actually the only article that includes the latter when looking at Category:WWE teams and stables.  Sekyaw  (talk)  20:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Despite my disappointment that Sara Del Rey wasn't moved to "Sara Amato" (I couldn't provide articles for this as you'd have to watch the premiere episode of WWE Breaking Ground to see for yourself), the reason for consistensy regarding this article is valid enough for the name change. Let's just get this over with. - 119.95.139.29 (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think all tag teams/stables should have the more concise disambiguation of "wrestling" unless there's a case where it needs the longer disambiguation. Someone can correct me on this if I'm wrong, but traditional or amateur wrestling does not have tag teams or stables so there's not a need for the longer disambiguation. -- JDC808  ♫  19:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - For consistency reasons. Hansen Sebastian 05:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (technical) Suppport I actually agree with JDC808, these article should be just "wrestling", however right now all use the full "professional wrestling" disambigulator. In 2014, Talk:Bayley_(wrestler) decided that "wrestler" was okay for single wrestlers, but Talk:Blading_(professional_wrestling) decided that it was not okay to use "wrestling" for professional wrestling terms. There may have been a bundle request for tag teams but I don't remember where that was. Might be time to revisit that for consistency purposes, I don't see any point in having different disambigulators for wrestlers and teams.LM2000 (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - I believe this adds clarity. -  Galatz Talk  14:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kevin Owens
SHouldn't he be listed as a former member? there's even official WWE Youtube videos calling him a member. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMUT2Rkw82c Muur (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Big E is still part of the New Day
He's listed as being a former member but they said that he's still part of the group, he's just representing them by himself is all. He still does the "New Day rocks" clap and his ring gear tonight had the New Day's logo on it. He isn't a former member. 65.189.193.27 (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Big E's activeness in the group.
Maybe it's just how I see it, but according to all three members of The New Day, as well as the official accounts of WWE on all social media platforms and Big E's page on the WWE website, he's still recognised as a member of The New Day. How about we just state that he's currently inactive in the group since he's on Raw and the other guys are on SmackDown. To me, that's what makes more sense. TB Chigz (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 21 April 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved    Kadzi    (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The New Day (professional wrestling) → The New Day – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This page was originally moved away from the undisambiguated name without discussion in 2016 because of possible confusion with The New Day (newspaper). However, the newspaper was very short-lived, and that move was likely unjustified. The New Day were named #1 on WWE's list of 50 greatest tag teams, and the longest-reigning tag team champions of all time. Search results and pageviews |The_New_Day_(newspaper) show an overwhelming majority in favour of the tag team. 162 etc. (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Both topics have only national, not international significance. The move was justified because the newspaper was widely publicised in reliable sources across the UK; that it failed and closed a few months later could not have been predicted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WWE most certainly has international significance; its events are held around the world, and its weekly television programming is seen by millions of people in places such as India, South America, South Africa, Germany and Canada.
 * WP:DPT asks us to consider pageviews and long-term significance. In this case, the long-term significance of the greatest tag team of all time, vs. that of a failed newspaper, is undeniable; the pageviews (99%!) certainly support that. 162 etc. (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Ritchie. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 00:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't see how a newspaper that lasted three months can have such long-term significance in a global encyclopedia. Relevance in the UK does not equal relevance world wide. Calidum  14:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it matters in the end, but my comment was supposed to in support of the move. Calidum  13:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the impression I got too.  Does this affect your interpretation of the discussion and consensus? 162 etc. (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)